Fox knows that if a judge rules that the president can arbitrarily ban any reporter from the press room, then they could be on thin ice in any future administration depending on the party in control. Letting the president hand-pick the reporters covering him sets a very bad precedent for all news organizations.
Well, I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure if Fox News existed in the 1970s, Nixon wouldn’t have had to resign.
A few stories that one must scroll past at foxnews.com before one sees the news about Michael Cohen right now (which they for some reason title: “Mueller squeezes ex-Trump lawyer Cohen about Russia real estate deal”):
Two American teens among trio tortured, killed execution-style in apartment complex near Tijuana
New York mayor booed at 30 Rock tree lighting ceremony
Beachcomber finds horrifying, alien-like creature with frightening teeth
Woman ID’d 20 years after she’s found dead by road in sleeping bag, carpet
Nurse who lied about terminal cancer diagnosis gets prison time
It could be worse. When Cohen’s offices were raided by the FBI, they buried it under a story about violent sex-craved pandas. At least those other things exist.
Clearly you’ve never snuck into a zoo after hours.
With all the Cohen and related news, I decided to check out Fox News earlier today. You could barely find any news about those topics. But front and center (main news story) was about Marc Lamont Hill and his anti-Isreal comments on CNN. Fast-forward a mere couple hours later and CNN fires him and you can barely find a peep about the guy on their website any longer. The same is still true about Cohen except for this gem: “Cohen guilty plea does absolutely nothing to show wrongdoing”.
This is nothing but state sponsored (ie. Trump) propaganda.
MSNBC host Chris Hayes doesn’t even call them Fox anymore, he calls them Trump TV.
Can I complain about the FOX news defenders here?
On a youTube video explaining how FOX news is different from other news networks right now in important, terrible ways, and how they’ve crossed lines in journalism (e.g. by taking part in candidate campaigns), almost all the comments were about how “all journalism is propaganda” and, of course, “CNN is worse”!
I debated with one of these people for a while, but at the point where he was saying “The idea that truth is desirable is just your personal preference” I realized it had been a huge waste of time.
How did you answer that? (The mind boggles.)
That literally sounds like the kind of shit you’d hear from a biblical literalist, or a George Orwell character who didn’t age very well. Yikes.
I didn’t answer that; that’s the point where you have to slowly back away.
I like to think the best of humanity, so I hope that people arguing things like that deep down have at least the possibility of thinking rationally. They will be alone one day, satisfied that they “won” debates by questioning truth itself, and all of a sudden realize “What the hell am I thinking!?”
Because otherwise it’s pretty scary; it’s like there’s a brain-eating virus spreading through the population.
The easiest way to answer it is to cite how in more than half a dozen surveys that people who listen to Fox News are more uninformed or misinformed than their counterparts who watch those other news networks, PBS, comedy shows or even no news at all. Search back through the thread - I made several posts using them as citations.
If people who cite Fox News as the main place they get their news constantly know less on a variety of subjects than the rest of the population, the problem isn’t bias and no, others are not “just as bad.” The problem is they lie and it’s pretty easy to demonstrate this.
This isn’t saying you’ll sway any of them but for a while there in this very thread if you care to scroll back there was a pattern where some Fox fanboi would bump the thread, be showed posts and surveys and simply be asked for their evidence that everyone is the same and they always fled, unable to respond.
You cannot reason with crazy people.
See comment above.
Truth. Sometimes you can manipulate them, but you cannot reason with them: they’re crazy.
If the alternative is to let things go unchecked and then have random readers or passers-by decide that it must be true that CNN is just as bad, I prefer to be that check.
I have always maintained that I argue facts online for two reasons that have nothing to do with persuading the person I am debating. Aside from the impartial observers, there’s myself: The moment I cannot reason my way through an issue or debate is the moment I need to reassess my position.
Arguing with facts allows me to be more sure that I am correct and allow me to change my mind when my argument is no longer persuasive to myself.
That’s been my working theory for the last couple years.
That brings up the question of whether it is ethical to manipulate them ourselves?
If you have a group of mentally disabled adults, then it is obviously unethical to try to use their disadvantage to exploit them and get them to do what you want them to do.
If, OTOH, you have a group of mentally disabled adults who are already being exploited in ways that harm both them and yourself, does that change the calculus at all? Are we any better if we develop our own false but productive and compelling narratives to lead them away from the destructive narratives they are currently being fed?
Agent Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
I imagine that folks like Einstein and Hawking had to wrestle with this issue every day. 
It’s not just a matter of being smarter, it’s a matter of being able to form and follow logical trains of thought, evaluate evidence, and only then form conclusions, rather than the other way around.
You don’t have to be a genius to be capable of critical thinking, and being a genius is no proof that you are either. Being significantly below average intelligence doesn’t mean that you aren’t capable of it either, but it does start to become difficult.
People watch Fox News in order to not to have to have their perspective challenged. They want to be spoon fed on what to think and who to hate. The want to be in the group with the bullies, not in the group of the picked on.